Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
As you read this long editorial you find that the professor was threatened with a lawsuit for making his position public. What’s wrong with this picture? Have the nutballs from PETA taken over the debate?
I mention this because of Grist Magazine’s writer David Roberts calling for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he calls a global warming “denial industry.” Industry? Which side of this debate seems to be an industry? Not the skeptics, that’s for sure. In Grist September 19, 2006 he says, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
So this guy equates honest (and obviously legitimate) scientific debate with trials over the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews in WWII. Does this make sense to anyone who is not an a-hole?
Roberts
found by Mad Dog Mike
Taking out all the politics – what is the call-to-action that pushes the “Global Warming Theory”? Answer: Taking care of the environment.
Taking out all the politics – what is the call-to-action of ignoring the “Global Warming Theory”? Answer: Continue to pollute the environment by man-made means.
Regardless of how it is presented to the public, and whether you or I think it is true or false, taking care of the environment that we depend on for our survival seems to be the better solution.
” Does this make sense to anyone who is not an a-hole?”
No, but…
Who do you believe on this? If its a problem created by humans, and that can be proven, than we can debate this from now till doomsday (pun intended) until we have crossed the point of no return. Kind of like debating the type of treatment while cancer is eating up your body, When do you finally reach a consensus and start to act on it?
Personally, if astronomers have proven that all the planets are experiencing this phenomenon, then its the sun creating this, and its a moot point. That doesnt mean we shouldnt change our asinine polluting habits.
AB: Here here. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Dvorak is usually a level-headed guy, but this global warming thing of his makes no sense. It’s a simple case of cause and effect. If you put sh*it in, you will get sh*t out. Just as it is with smoking, so it is with dumping pollutants into the air we breath. Common sense says the results will be bad. That said, nobody should be persecuted for their views, no matter what multinational conglomate is paying him off.
” Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a “scientific advisor” to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5] ”
All of A_B’s comments aside… this “type” of thing is not unusual. Scientists refuting what has become a politically popular answer to heated debates have had their funding pulled for years now.
But, as Joel says… whatever side you believe, despite real or exaggerated facts, the result in taking action is a good thing anyway.
According to Wikipedia, it sounds like Ball is the one doing all the suing, not the other way around. Ball actually sued others for challenging his claims about global warming’s non-existence.
http://tinyurl.com/23c8ey
Furthermore, the article points out several of Ball’s fallacies:
I’m an A-Hole and it doesn’t even make sense to me!
Hey..I’ve said it before…
We need to stop using oil and use alternative energy. AND indeed there is climate change going on and everyone knows it. AND Exxon should be taxed down to reasonable profits and the money used to develop wind power and whatever.
I just can’t see running around willy-nilly as if this is a done deal and then jumping all over anyone with an opinion because it doesn’t agree with the knee-jerk litany. The self-righteousness of the scene bugs me.
It all seems weird to me and suspicious even though all my editors have lockstep sold out to the idea. THUS I am the only one on this blog who throws these counter notions into the pot. So what? Why is it weird? Does it shock you?
#3,
It can be proven that humans are the cause of global climate change? Even if we all agree we have contributed to a natural phenomenon, I seriously doubt it could ever be shown that we were the cause.
One thing this whole debate shows is that scientists are as guided by ideology as the people they claim their methods make them superior to.
Today on NPR Talk of the Nation they interviewed an economist who argued that it would be more destructive to world society to fight global warming the way it really needs to be fought (28x Kyoto Protocol) than to focus on the continued generation of wealth and the elimination of poverty. He argued it will be cheaper to deal with the effects of g.w. than to try to fight it. Sorry I didn’t get his name, but I was in bed with the flu and didn’t feel like jumping up to find a pen/paper. Somebody tell Bono the Global Warming people will need to stop poverty eradication cold to achieve their goals.
I agree that there should be a Debate.
However, I also more strongly agree that we should curb the emissions and processes that are polluting our atmosphere.
All that Carbon and Pollution is killing the planet we have.
Unless we get to ‘reboot’ and start ‘clean’, we need to define and implement methods to control the noxious fumes we as a population produce.
Even if Global Warming through CO2 emission is not true, the proposed method (s) to fight these emissions are noble and must be carried over.
It’s not only a paradigm shift for a whole industry, but for the whole conception of the world. Things that are proposed seem like a good goal to me:
– Reduce electricity consumption, by using more efficient devices.
– Reduce gasoline consumption by use of more efficient cars and alternative fuels (ok, same Co2 but less pollution byproducts)
– Cleaner, more efficient factories.
– Less emissions by using public transportation (that will cut traffic jams too)
And so much more I care not to enunciate, all seem sensible and look like the right thing to do.
So, who does benefit with the denial of Global Warming? Well, simple, the same powers that be that are already in power and control the fate of the world. Petrochemical multinationals, Automotive multinationals, Consumer electronic manufacturers. Oil and coal producing countries, and emerging economies (and established economies who want to profit with the emergence of emerging economies.).
So, even if GW (Global Warming) is not happening BECAUSE of these, we’re better off getting rid of this “Status Quo” machienery of the XX century.
PS. (slow down cowboy again…sheesh…)
“Are you completely unaware that these exact same tactics were used when the dangers of cigarette smoking became well publicized?”
First, the whole cover up about the dangers of smoking is just BS. I remember watching a movie from the 40s where cigarettes were referred to as “coffin nails.” The fact that tobacco is a danger is certainly not new.
And secondly, merely because the tobacco industry lied does necessitate the the oil industry has concocted a vast conspiracy to deny the “truth” about global warning. Environmental groups lie all the time, does that mean we should never believe any of them about anything?
“Continue to pollute the environment by man-made means.”
The global warming debate has nothing do with pollution. Pouring crap into our streams and lakes and forests is irrelevant. The global warming debate relates solely to CO2. Nothing else.
“If its a problem created by humans, and that can be proven, than we can debate this from now till doomsday (pun intended) until we have crossed the point of no return.”
Just like how global cooling was “proved” in the 70s? I’m old enough to remember the global cooling hysteria from the 70s. I believed it then, I’m a little more skeptical this time around.
“Personally, if astronomers have proven that all the planets are experiencing this phenomenon, then its the sun creating this, and its a moot point. That doesnt mean we shouldnt change our asinine polluting habits.”
So even if we are not causing global warming we should change our habits for no reason at all? As I said, this issue is not about pollution, it’s solely about CO2.
And it simply does not matter what the other planets are doing. The earth’s temperature has gone up and down throughout its history. It’s asinine, utterly asinine to think that the earth’s temperature should suddenly come to a standstill and never change.
“It’s a simple case of cause and effect. If you put sh*it in, you will get sh*t out. Just as it is with smoking, so it is with dumping pollutants into the air we breath. Common sense says the results will be bad.”
Once again, the debate is not about shit or pollution. It’s about CO2. And don’t forget that common sense informed us that the earth was flat and the universe rotated around it.
Relying on common sense is another way of saying “I don’t have any evidence but I feel better with this belief because everyone seems to agree with me.”
8, I think human beings are a major contributing factor, and that you are correct in your assertion that this cannot be proven, without a doubt. I do think some of it is cyclical however, as the other planets are also heating up. The question is to what extent and can we afford to debate this until its too late? I think not, but some posters on this blog believe giving up their precious HumVee is akin to going back to the Stone Age.
@12: “Once again, the debate is not about shit or pollution. It’s about CO2.”
Heh, that’s funny. Last time I checked, CO2 emissions were pollution. But maybe that’s just me.
I like how Ball’s article mentions NOTHING about supposed evidence against global warming; it just rants on and on about how persecuted he has been. Obviously his POV isn’t valid enough in its own right to be presentable; he needs underhanded tactics to talk around it. Worthless.
“First, the whole cover up about the dangers of smoking is just BS. I remember watching a movie from the 40s where cigarettes were referred to as “coffin nails.” The fact that tobacco is a danger is certainly not new.”
And I remember cigarette ads with Doctors telling you which was the “healthier” cigarette, I think it was for KOOLS.
“So even if we are not causing global warming we should change our habits for no reason at all? As I said, this issue is not about pollution, it’s solely about CO2. ”
Dont you want your kids to live on a clean planet? Thats reason enough.
Where exactly do you think CO2 comes from?
“And it simply does not matter what the other planets are doing. The earth’s temperature has gone up and down throughout its history. It’s asinine, utterly asinine to think that the earth’s temperature should suddenly come to a standstill and never change.”
How can it not matter? If the other planets are warming up, and Mars is losing its ice caps, then it matters a hell of a lot. It matters because there is some concrete evidence for a possible CAUSE.
http://tinyurl.com/lo43x
Honestly I am a little perplexed by your statements.
I have a little affliction, which might be called “academe-o-phobia”, which causes me to question the wisdom of careful research people, who all too often seem to be so fixated on their computer models, which have proven themselves time and again to be very much in conflict with each other to be very believeable.
At the same time, though, I also have “reaganite-o-phobia”, which causes me, when listening to pundits of tiny minded conservative business policies, to think that they really are out in some kind of left field on these issues. (think: “Don’t worry, be happy… just spend, spend your money!”).
What to do? Just look out the window, that’s what. The weather’s been a little crazy this year. But then again, though, one has to wonder what it really means.
What will happen in the future? What if human-helped global warming does indeed result? And then the excess heat and CO2 causes northern climates to become more fertile, thereby allowing more organic matter to be grown there, making alternatives to fossil fuels become more plentiful (and thus making it possible to air-condition homes and malls the tropics, too, if need be). Is this really a disaster?
I think wind turbines are really cool. I wouldn’t mind having one nearby where I live, as long as it doesn’t make too much noise. (and so what if a few birds get whacked… there’s billions of birds out there!).
“Crooked is the path of eternity” – F. W. Nietzche
SN- This for you:
http://tinyurl.com/388jao
Way to go JCD. I like that you can call your readers A-holes and they not get pissed at you.
14. “I did not say it was a cover-up. I said:”
I’m sorry, I guess there is not vast corporate driven international cover up, there is a vast corporate driven international FUD campaign. My bad.
15. “Heh, that’s funny. Last time I checked, CO2 emissions were pollution. But maybe that’s just me.”
Heh, that’s funny. Last time I checked CO2 is a naturally occurring compound. But maybe that’s just me.
16. “Dont you want your kids to live on a clean planet? Thats reason enough.”
I have nothing against cleaning up the pollution in this planet. But the global warming debate is not about pollution, it’s about CO2.
“How can it not matter? If the other planets are warming up, and Mars is losing its ice caps, then it matters a hell of a lot. It matters because there is some concrete evidence for a possible CAUSE.”
It would not matter because it would not be caused by man. Thus, the debate would turn from “we have to stop overheating the earth” to “we have to start cooling the earth.”
In my opinion we shouldn’t intentionally change the climate of the earth either way.
18. “SN- This for you:”
I never said the tobacco industry never lied. In fact I said they did. My point was that it is irrelevant to this issue.
SN- “Can we break down where the human CO2 contribution comes from? Of the total 1,480 million metric tons of carbon (mmtc) emitted from the burning of fossil fuels in the United States, the biggest amount (627 mmtc) comes from petroleum, with most of that coming from gasoline (293 mmtc) and diesel/heating oil (144 mmtc). The other large contributor is the combustion of coal (533 mmtc), most of which is burned by electric utilities. ”
Yes some of it is natural, and some pollution.
21. “Yes some of it is natural, and some pollution.”
How can the same compound be “pollution” in one instance and completely natural in another instance? If I dump some H20 out into my yard am I polluting merely because a human did it?!
SN
I agree with your direction. To clarify one point though,…
Yes, CO2 is not a pollutant as is dioxin. It is required for life to succeed. In excess, it is toxic and will kill you and, as many suggest, the planet.
While there may be a difference between a pollutant and CO2, to most of us, it is too trivial to notice.
I agree when John says you have to wonder whats really going on in the pro-global warming camp sometimes. I’m deeply involved in animal rights and enviromental issues, but I have an honest view that man isn’t the major and possibly not even a top minor cause of Global Warming.
This guy may be a pawn of industry, or not. His major crime seems to be that his group is funded by **foundations and corporations**…..well guess what folks, so are the enviromental groups.
There are voices out there, reputable scientists, that have no axe to grind or industry or goverment grants to protect, that honestly see Global Warming as a natural occurrance. Maybe cyclical, definatly solar related.
I have a healthy respect for debate, but the groups backing the Global Warming as man made don’t seem to honestly want that debate. They and their allies have gone out of their way to label every scientist that disagrees with them even slightly as **industrial dupes** and this just isn’t true. Being enviromentally PC has become a huge business. Maybe Joe Blow down the block believes he can help his planet(i’m one of those). but the top enviromental groups, and the scientists that they pay(and they do, just as much if not more funding than all the industries combined) are in it for the money and power it brings them.
I’ve never understood the unwillingness of people to have honest debate of this and many other issues facing us. When name calling and reputation smearing takes the place of debate, then I tend to turn a deaf ear.
And SN is right, CO2, while being a *polluntant* is still quite distictive from the other forms of polluntants…ie:.chemicals in the water, radiation, asbesto etc…..it’s created differently and has it’s effects on the atmosphere.
This lawsuit is being filed because Mr Ball constantly lies about his credentials.
as seen here: READ THIS!
he has not had any recent work published in peer-reviewed journals… and it is easy to see why, he is an Oil lobby shill.
23. Not to belabor a point, but you’re using circular reasoning. You’re assuming that the amount of CO2 humans are putting in the air is “toxic.”
What you (or anyone) has to do is first prove that the CO2 levels caused by humans are toxic, i.e. are causing global warming.
#19
They’re pissed all the time anyway. I just try and direct it away from me as best I can. How this deteriorated into a debate about cigarettes I find amusing.
Paid shill for oil company or not. It makes no matter, he has a right to say what he thinks.
The thing i love about the liberal kind in this country is that they used to be all for free speech, but lately if you don’t agree with them they they would rather you be sent to siberia to a gulag.
The conservatives are not much better either.
What happened to the liberals who used to protect free speech for everyone, now they only do if you follow THEIR agenda.
24. “And SN is right, CO2, while being a *polluntant* is still quite distictive from the other forms of polluntants…ie:.chemicals in the water, radiation, asbesto etc…..it’s created differently and has it’s effects on the atmosphere.”
Thanks joshua. And I just wanted everyone to know, I’m 100% behind the idea of keeping harmful pollutants out of our air, waterways, forests, etc.
And while I’m convinced that there is global warming, I’m not at all convinced that we are causing it. As I’ve said before, the climate of the earth has changed drastically over the earth’s history. To think that it should now remain static is asinine.
Heck, if after hundreds of millions of years the earth’s climate suddenly stopped changing, that’d scare me.
#25..this post you cite as proof is total bullshit..here is what it says at the bottom of the letter that blogger cited:
first the blogger says this:
but when you go look at the actual letter it says this:
Who is bullshitting who here? This is one good reason I’m keep this sort of debate alive. Something is fishy. And I don;t give a shit how much money Exxon is throwing around. They are protecting their interests..what do you expect. Has anyone considered that they could possibly be on the correct side of the debate but the fact that they fund anything puts the debate into a bad light. It’s a catch-22. This is not like the cigarette situation from what I can tell.
Hey if you simply say that Ball is an old retired fart who doesn’t know jack, then I can accept that rather than a trick like this blogger is trying to pull.
25. “he has not had any recent work published in peer-reviewed journals”
Maybe it’s because he’s retired, as John already pointed out. Or maybe its because of what Ball was talking about. The opposing side of the debate gets ignored and buried.